December 18, 2025
At the final school board meeting of 2025, the board members had a passionate discussion about the extension of Larry Hook’s contract for one year. Amendment available here
The board met several times over the past week in special meetings, scrambling to coordinate the evaluation for Hook’s performance and the contract draft, which apparently due to some confusion in sessions Monday and Tuesday, didn’t arrive from the attorney until the day of the board meeting, leaving the board members little time to review and discuss.
Little time appeared set aside to review the options, considering that no copy of any amendment was provided on Board Docs (see image provided of agenda). This is further supported by Board Vice President Wendy Strickler Biederman action to make a motion to amend the agenda to allow the board to step out for a short executive session at the outset of the Public Meeting. An executive session would have allowed a review of the late-arriving document and have a private conversation, which was voted down by Board President Bob Bibb, Sara Jonas and Mark Bell. (2:35 into the recording)
Incoming board member Jeremy Ward spoke (19:32 of the recorded session) during public commentary, suggesting that the decision to force the vote (which does not contractually need to take place until March 2026) was politically motivated.
The options proposed under Agenda Item 12, Board Discussion were two extension options:
Option A: a one-year contract extension for the 2026-2027 school year, ending July 31 2027, with a 6-month notice of non-renewal, where the district is required to pay out the remaining 6 months of the contract term (around $100K estimated)
Option B: a one-year contract extension for the 2026-2027 school year, ending July 1, 2027 with a 60-day notice of buy-out where the district is required to pay out the 60-day remaining service. (around $30K estimated)
Mark Bell (54:17 of the session) mentioned that he had spoken to board member-elect Jeff Nye. Bell further claims that board-member elect Nye stated support for a one-year extension, a claim Nye himself refutes. Bell also stated that Counsel Bill Deters suggested they skip the evaluation (55:00) , and move right to deciding on the Superintendent contract. Deters, according to Bell, indicated several members were inclined to offer a longer (3 or 5-year) extension and other board members wanted to move on and start fresh. Deters again, as Bell conveys, suggested the best option here “and again, he’s been doing this for thirty years he has a wealth of experience, he believed that the best option here was – not only for the existing board, not only for the superintendent – but also for the new board, was that a one year extension was the best compromise and the best decision for the school district. Not for individuals, but for the district.”
Bell’s memory of Deter’s advice continued: “In that year, it will allow the new school board – 3 new members and 2 existing members – to have a chance over a 12-month period to evaluate the Superintendent and determine whether or not that’s a superintendent they want to lead the district going forward.
Outside counsel – according to Bell – didn’t think it made any sense to dismiss the superintendent, nor did “he (Deters) want to empower the new board with the ability to dismiss the superintendent in those first 5, 6, 7 months of 2026.” Bell further says, he can say with 100% certainty this was Deters position, because Bell followed up for clarity in a call the prior evening (December 16th, 2025). This can be heard after 55:35.
Before the vote was taken, just after the 1:02:00 marker in the meeting, Sara Jonas took a moment to make a statement. She stated.
“I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to Mr Hook for his service to our school district. Uh, Leadership in Education is never easy, it requires long hours, difficult decisions and a willingness to serve every student, family, and staff member often under intense pressure. Through it all, Mr Hook showed dedication to our schools and a clear commitment to what we believe is best for our children. Regardless of differing opinions and challenges that come with public service, it is important to recognize the time and energy and heart that Mr Hook has invested in this role. Our district has benefitted from his experience, his steady presence and his willingness to lead under complex and often uncertain times. You’ve built a great team for this district, Larry, and I thank you for that. And I thank the entire team for putting up with all my questions and requests over, um, the years, I know that your time was very valuable, but without the guidance and expertise of you guys I wouldn’t have been able to learn as much as I have been over this time. And, Um, I just wanted a big shout out to Jodie and Jeannie, thank you so much for everything – you guys are really what makes everything move and get accomplished. And while this contract is not what I initially wanted or fought for, Larry, I want you to know that you are an asset and I’m fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with you and learn from you. On behalf of many in this community, I just wanted to say thank you for your hard work, your sacrifices and your service.”
Ultimately, both contract extension options were essentially the same assuming Larry Hook meets his stated goals and objectives. However, Option B certainly provided more financial flexibility to the district. Ultimately, Bibb, Jonas and Bell voted to extend, with the two remaining board members voting not to extend.
—————– Editorial Notes Below —————
The evaluation process appears from a distance to have been poorly executed under Bob Bibb’s leadership. First, the board should establish goals, and clear milestones for observation of evidence and effort towards delivering on the stated goals. After a few months (usually 3-6) have passed, the employers complete an evaluation & provide documented feedback to the employee. This is generally not intended to be a rushed activity, pressured by the end of an elected term.
The email shown here suggests the board evaluated him on Tuesday and Wednesday; however this contradicts what Board member Bell said in the meeting, which suggested they did not evaluate on Tuesday, they met on Wednesday but ignored the evaluation activity at first as they followed the advice of counsel Bill Deters to skip the evaluation and move right to decision.
Is it reasonable to expect that Bell misunderstood the order of actions and misspoke? Or, should residents assume that they decided on the contract and then completed the evaluation after the extension discussion on Wednesday all in the same evening, with counsel present at a rate of hundreds of dollars per hour? The specific timeline of these activities given Bell’s comments just isn’t fully clear, so we will follow up with a PRR to make sure the electronic copy was sent to Superintendent Hook on the 10th of December.
Many elements of Larry Hook’s evaluation to have been scored “INS” which means, Insufficient Basis for Judgement. Such a rating could indicate those specific goals did not have real milestones or evidentiary observations, or, that 3 of 5 evaluators didn’t observe enough evidence. Most Superintendents of 30+ years fully understand what it means to articulate the district vision – however, here Larry Hook earned an INS rating.
Consider the reaction of a board of directors if a CEO who had held the role for 3 years already, could not reasonably demonstrate the ability to explain the vision for the company?
Why is this the first evaluation during Larry Hook’s multi-year role here at FHSD?
It is reasonable to wonder if the board under the leadership of Bibb, Jonas, Stewart and Hausfeld put the district at risk of a lawsuit, too, if they didn’t extend Hook’s contract. For their entire term, Hausfeld, Jonas, Bibb and Stewart did not produce evidence that they documented a Superintendent evaluation. When new board members in 2023 insisted – Jonas, Stewart and Bibb finally met contractual obligations. Failure to adhere for years to a material contractual obligation can be considered in some cases breach of contract.
While this 2025 evaluation of the Superintendent appears to be the first year FHSD engaged in this standard (and contractually obligated) practice, public companies and universities and other public districts in Ohio all engage in surveys and performance feedback and scoring to evaluate and develop talent. Sarah Jonas has received evaluations at her role, and Mark Bell has likely been asked for feedback from his Dean as a member of university faculty. While this December 2025 evaluation of Larry Hook is quite incomplete, it would be difficult to excuse the issues here due to lack of familiarity with the evaluation process, or the process for identifying and observing evidence of key deliverables against that strategic plan by any of the members of the board that voted to retain Mr Hook.
The image below is a snapshot from Larry Hook’s current contract (located in our Public Drive) which represents the highest salary ever paid by FHSD to an administrator, $190K+ per year, active until the end of the 2026 school year, showing an annual evaluation is contractually required. Larry Hook’s evaluation in his role at Springboro district prior to FHSD is available here.
It is incumbent upon elected leaders to know the contracts they need to manage and the obligations within those contracts that they must fulfill on behalf of the district. Either the board led by Hausfeld, Steward Bibb and Jonas chose not to follow the contract or, were unaware of their obligations, and with only two contracts to manage (Superintendent and Treasurer) it’s hard to surmise they did not or could not read the contract they supported. Regardless of the root cause of the failure, there is no evidence they fulfilled the contractual obligations for an evaluation annually during their term until this year 2025.
Additionally, the monologue Mark Bell provided created more questions instead of answers; particularly regarding counsels’ influence. While the outside counsel is hired to offer insight and guidance on legal matters, we aren’t sure it’s ethical or appropriate for an attorney to state their preference, as Bell claimed Deters did, about what the new board which was duly elected by our community should or should not “be able” to do. We hope Mr. Bell misstated Mr. Deters words.
The community soundly voted in new leadership, with Jeff Nye, Erin Walczewski and Jeremy Ward gaining roughly 65.2 % of the total votes, Bell and running mate Heis only had 34.8% of the votes cast. To make the decision to extend the Superintendent contract in December despite the contractual flexibility which did not require an extension to be determined before March 2026, the lame-duck board members appear to have chosen to ignore the message sent by voters or that contractual opportunity to put the decision in the hands of the community’s newly chosen leadership.
In addition, Bibb, Jonas and Bell all claimed to want the best fiscal management of the district – but it did not appear from their commentary that they considered that flexibility is fiscally responsible. If Larry Hook meets the goals and objectives of his role and the newly elected board members act with integrity, there should be no reason to remove him. If there isn’t a risk of him failing to deliver against his milestones, there should be no reason to require a 6-month or more advisory for non-renewal. Unfortunately, the departing board members were rumored to have entered their seats with their own “removal list” of district employees they perceived were undesirable, and could explain why they might assume a new set of board members might do the same. However, even with the best intentions and clear eyes on the evaluation of Larry Hook – the 2025 evaluation looks much like the evaluation from Springboro, and suggests there are clear and repeated achievement gaps.
For reference too, we’ve provided the Termination clauses from the current Superintendent Contract. The full contract is available here
Advocate FHSD 
Leave a comment